POL - Is attacking Iran in our best interests?

[rexallllsc]

So what do you guys think? If terror-style attacks are the likely result, could this (an attack on Iran) really be considered the best move for US National Security?

hxxp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/01/AR2006040100981_pf.html

Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.

[Franklinnoble]

If they continue to ignore the UN and insist upon developing nuclear weapons, then I would hope that an international coalition would invade and enforce the UN ruling.

But, it will most likely end up being the U.S. doing the heavy lifting, protecting the world from such a threat while the chickenshit international community heaps criticism upon us.

[IwasHere]

We are already in the Neighborhood.

They talked this morning about how the Whitehouse was analyzing Iran's current Offensive Capabilities. This lead me to believe the Whitehouse is trying to figure out what Iran can do if we just start dropping bombs all over the place.

[Desnudo]

I think an Iran invasion would result in serious problems suppressing the population. Unless we were in and out with the express goal of eliminating their nuclear program and nothing else, I think Iran would be a nightmare.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

So what do you guys think? If terror-style attacks are the likely result, could this (an attack on Iran) really be considered the best move for US National Security?

Would allowing Iran to build nuclear arms be the best move for US national security? Seems like you lose no matter what choice you make.

[GrantDawg]

What's the chances of France and Germany actually taking action on this?



Ok, stop laughing.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

Would allowing Iran to build nuclear arms be the best move for US national security? Seems like you lose no matter what choice you make.

Rexall has argued on this board before that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[IwasHere]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

I think an Iran invasion would result in serious problems suppressing the population. Unless we were in and out with the express goal of eliminating their nuclear program and nothing else, I think Iran would be a nightmare.

There is a huge difference between bombing them back to the stone-age and an Invasion.

Just keep dropping bombs until they comply with all UN demands. Do not let Bush or the Whitehouse try to take this over, or you will have US troops in Iran. We want UN Inspectors back in Iran, Not US troops.

[Glengoyne]

Nuke the site from orbit.

It's the only way to be sure.

[stevew]

Call in special agent Harry Tasker. He'll take care of it.

[Anthony]

how many wars can one country fight in a 4 year period? seriously. Afghan war was a win, Iraq we lost - what, Bush going for best 2 out of 3? yeeesh.

[dubb93]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

Iraq we lost - what

Call me crazy, but that would be like you looking out your front window and seeing a Russian tank rolling through the streets. Then looking out your back window and seeing the local drunks, shotguns in hand and claiming the Russians lost the war.

[Anthony]

don't let your bias blind you. after the Iraqi Civil War and more radical loons take power, all we'll have accomplished is taking control from one mad-man and giving it to many.

the country is as unstable as when we first stepped in, only now the country isn't kept in check by a tyrant and his two sons, the cat is away so the mice are playing. that's not winning a war.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

don't let your bias blind you. after the Iraqi Civil War and more radical loons take power, all we'll have accomplished is taking control from one mad-man and giving it to many.

the country is as unstable as when we first stepped in, only now the country isn't kept in check by a tyrant and his two sons, the cat is away so the mice are playing. that's not winning a war.

Don't let the media bias blind you. Things aren't as bad over there as they make it seem, and the great majority of the Iraqi population is VERY happy that Saddam is gone, and that they have a chance to vote.

Just because there are pockets of insurgency doesn't mean the whole country has gone to hell. That's like saying everyone who lives in Georgia must be a racist because there are a few Klan rallies every now and then.

[st.cronin]

As long as I can remember, when it comes to the Middle East, the US has been stuck with choosing between least bad outcomes. I honestly have no idea what a 'succesful' MidEast policy would even lead to, except in terms of what it's not: Not restoring the caliphate, no new Islamist Empire, no nuclear holocaust...

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

As long as I can remember, when it comes to the Middle East, the US has been stuck with choosing between least bad outcomes. I honestly have no idea what a 'succesful' MidEast policy would even lead to, except in terms of what it's not: Not restoring the caliphate, no new Islamist Empire, no nuclear holocaust...

What did Iraq have to do with an Islamist Empire? If anything, we're helping to facilitate movements in Islamic fanaticism.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by rexallllsc

What did Iraq have to do with an Islamist Empire? If anything, we're helping to facilitate movements in Islamic fanaticism.

I was speaking in vague terms, not commenting on any specific policy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

how many wars can one country fight in a 4 year period? seriously. Afghan war was a win, Iraq we lost - what, Bush going for best 2 out of 3? yeeesh.

The answer, apparently, is one. Any more than that and things are stretched too thin.

Hell Atlantic is right, if the question is, 'is invading Iran in our best interests?', then it's just a theoretical quetion from fantasy land. We don't even have enough troops to keep things from going to shit in Iraq or Afghanistan, what they heck are we going to do in Iran? Not to mention that we have even LESS of a casus belli with Iran than we had with Iraq. There is literally nobody to invade Iran.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Rexall has argued on this board before that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

I think there is an argument to be made. Things tend to cool down when Nukes are introduced, look at the Pakistan/India conflict: they are on the best terms since the breakup. Iran with nukes is certainly better than a US invasion of Iran. I think best case is still Iran making a deal to give up their nuclear program.

[Glengoyne]

I think it is a pointless exercise in rhetoric. This simply isn't going to happen. I actually agree with Biggles. There are no troops to pull it off, and Iraq has got to be more than enough warning that you can't just go off willy nilly making policies regarding this region without some forethought.

I'm still wishing we had completely taken care of Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Don't let the media bias blind you. Things aren't as bad over there as they make it seem, and the great majority of the Iraqi population is VERY happy that Saddam is gone, and that they have a chance to vote.

Just because there are pockets of insurgency doesn't mean the whole country has gone to hell. That's like saying everyone who lives in Georgia must be a racist because there are a few Klan rallies every now and then.

Tell me, what would 'things going badly' look like to you? I mean, just yesterday fifty people died in attacks, including six American soldiers. The day before, 42 bodies were found on various roads and 26 people were killed in various other attacks. That's 118 people over the last two days.

Because really, every objective fact says that things suck over there. Journalists and politicians can't leave their hotels or they'll be kidnapped or beheaded or both. Most of our 'coalition of the willing' have deserted us. Electricity production is at a three year low. They can't even get enough clean water in Baghdad.

Is this all made up? We've spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and you are telling me that this isn't that bad? So what would a 'bad' Iraq look like? Or are you saying it looks good compared to a post-apocolyptic, nuclear winter Iraq? Or is it your position that these events are made up by media? What exactly do you mean?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think it is a pointless exercise in rhetoric. This simply isn't going to happen. I actually agree with Biggles. There are no troops to pull it off, and Iraq has got to be more than enough warning that you can't just go off willy nilly making policies regarding this region without some forethought.

I'm still wishing we had completely taken care of Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq.

I was going to write this before, but I forgot: surgical strikes are still theoretically possible, but a bad idea. We have a hundred thousand troops pinned down just across the border from Iran. We make any move, and all of a sudden they become targets. They go from fighting an insurgency to fighting an insurgency plus airstrikes. Not a position that I want to put them in.

Even if that weren't the case, I would rather Isreal took care of it. It is much more their security that a nuclear Iran would threaten, not so much ours.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What's the chances of France and Germany actually taking action on this?



Ok, stop laughing.

I mean, after they saw how great of a success Iraq was, they just have to help us invade Iran, right?

It's bad form to make fun of them for being right.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by dubb93

Call me crazy, but that would be like you looking out your front window in Afghanistan in the 80's and seeing a Russian tank rolling through the streets. Then looking out your back window and seeing the local drunks, shotguns in hand and claiming the Russians lost the war.

Totally crazy.

[rexallllsc]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Even if that weren't the case, I would rather Isreal took care of it. It is much more their security that a nuclear Iran would threaten, not so much ours.

Be careful, that statement may get you labelled as an anti-semite around here.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I mean, after they saw how great of a success Iraq was, they just have to help us invade Iran, right?

It's bad form to make fun of them for being right.

Well I'd say it's bad form to say they were right about Iraq, even with the difficulties we've faced there. Right is still right, and wrong is still wrong. They were wrong then..and to boot, they were wrong for the wrong shelfish reasons.

[BishopMVP]

Yes.

A) It is quite clear in my mind that the mullahs intend to acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of cost. Whether or not you think they should be allowed to have them, at this point there is no way you can rationally look at the facts on the ground and believe they only intend to use nuclear power for civilian uses.

B) It is also clear that the government of Iran has 1) been pursuing a low-level war against the US for quite some time now, most notably in Beirut and the Khobar Towers bombing that is only tempered by the desire to avoid striking hard enough to provoke a full US response, as well as 2) pursuing a foreign policy in the surrounding area, particularly the Levant (Lebanon/Israel/Palestine) with Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad and now Iraq al-Sadr, SCIRI, Badr Brigrades that is both against these countries interest and ours, and 3) preparing for a larger showdown with the US by setting up terrorist assets abroad (as this article helps point out.)

C) The majority of Iranians are opposed to the mullahs hold on power, particularly among the youth and in the cities, regardless of whether they would support a foreign overthrow of the government. Unfortunately, the government is probably ruthless enough to prevent any overthrow in the near (5-7 years) future.

D) If they felt they had nothing to lose, those in power would love to annihilate Israel and possibly the US.

E) The UN will do nothing with teeth, as at the least France and Russia do not want to support military action, and China would block any economic sanctions regarding energy deals.

F) While we likely do not have the troop strength to occupy and rebuild Iran, particularly if we kept a large presence in Iraq, we undoubtedly have a military quite capable of destroying the regime in classic military terms. What comes next is uncertain, but there appears to be at least a little more of a developed civil society in Iran than in Iraq during the Saddam era (ie, there were attempts at domestic reform from people still alive, ie in Iran they were just shut out of power rather than shot as in Iraq.)


Thus, it is my firm belief that unless the US (and possibly a few other countries stepping up in a support role) takes military action real soon (5 years maximum) we will be forced to deal with a Mullah-run Iran with nuclear weapons. Under this scenario, the only options left for us will be either A) support a despotic regime against the will of the people - B) idly accept greater Iranian power plays in the ME, particularly regarding the Saudi Arabian oil fields - C) hope for a peaceful overthrow where all nuclear material stays accounted for - D) write off Israel and much of the Middle East, consigning it to an eventual nuclear holocaust or E) hope the current leaders don't mean what they say.

Since hope is not a strategy, I prefer to engage the enemy ASAP - before they acquire the one thing (nuclear weapons) that negates most of our relative strength in a conflict.

This is another situation where I wish we didn't have to pursue this strategy, but I don't really see any other realistic endgames other than the ones laid out (actually one exception - US bombing of suspected nuclear facilities sans-invasion and the Iranian response, but in short I think if we're gonna attack someone, we gotta do it all at once. Never wound an opponent who wishes you death.) If anybody disagrees with anything I layed out, I'd love to hear it, I just hope I laid it out fairly clearly.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Unfortunately, I think that this argument assumes rational actors on both sides and at the very least I don't think Iran would qualify. For example, see the recent talk about wiping Israel off the map.

Scenario: Your conservative political party is falling out of favor. The moderates have a big voice now in government. Out of nowhere, a gift is presented to you: the leader of the easiest political target in the world calls you part of an "Axis of Evil" in his most important speech of the year. Is the rational thing to do:

A) Condemn the statement and foment the nationalism in your country, going completely overboard in your rhetoric demonizing your opponents while acting passively militarily. Win the support of a majority of your country and stay in power.

B) Tell the other country how sorry you are for being evil and get trounced by the moderates. Your career is finished, you'll be lucky to escape jail.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm not entirely sure why people keep saying Iran is not a 'rational actor'. After all, isn't this the same country that while demonizing the US as "The Great Satan" was trading hostages for arms with the US? They know rhetoric gets them support. They also know how to act practically in the world.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Scenario: Your conservative political party is falling out of favor. The moderates have a big voice now in government. Out of nowhere, a gift is presented to you: the leader of the easiest political target in the world calls you part of an "Axis of Evil" in his most important speech of the year. Is the rational thing to do:

A) Condemn the statement and foment the nationalism in your country, going completely overboard in your rhetoric demonizing your opponents while acting passively militarily. Win the support of a majority of your country and stay in power.

B) Tell the other country how sorry you are for being evil and get trounced by the moderates. Your career is finished, you'll be lucky to escape jail.

Your hypothetical relies on at least two rather suspect pillars of support - A) the "Axis of Evil" speech was somehow the impetus for Iran's bellicose rhetoric, when that rhetoric predates the revolution and B) the elections were legitimate and the mullahs weren't banning hundreds of candidates.

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I'm not entirely sure why people keep saying Iran is not a 'rational actor'. After all, isn't this the same country that while demonizing the US as "The Great Satan" was trading hostages for arms with the US? They know rhetoric gets them support. They also know how to act practically in the world.

I believe they are a lot more rational than most people give them credit for. I just disagree completely with what I believe are their goals.

[CamEdwards]

This is one of the most difficult situations I think this country has faced in many years.

I was talking over the weekend with a guy who's fairly high up in the military, and when I asked him about Iran he was very evasive. I think the military recognizes the probable outcome of getting rid of the current power structure in Iran, but that chaos might still be preferable to a nuclear Iran.

As for France and Germany, they'd probably be more likely to go along this time around. The biggest obstacles we'd face would be China and Russia.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I mean, after they saw how great of a success Iraq was, they just have to help us invade Iran, right?

It's bad form to make fun of them for being right.

I'm not making fun of them for being right. I'm not asking for them to "help" us invade anywhere. I'm asking them to step up and take leadership and actually do something with teeth. I would like them to do all the heavy lifting on handling Iran, and we just play the support role. That will never happen because they won't do it, and the US won't allow it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If anybody disagrees with anything I layed out, I'd love to hear it, I just hope I laid it out fairly clearly.

The most obvious problem is that we don't have any troops to invade with.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Thus, it is my firm belief that unless the US (and possibly a few other countries stepping up in a support role) takes military action real soon (5 years maximum) we will be forced to deal with a Mullah-run Iran with nuclear weapons. Under this scenario, the only options left for us will be either A) support a despotic regime against the will of the people - B) idly accept greater Iranian power plays in the ME, particularly regarding the Saudi Arabian oil fields - C) hope for a peaceful overthrow where all nuclear material stays accounted for - D) write off Israel and much of the Middle East, consigning it to an eventual nuclear holocaust or E) hope the current leaders don't mean what they say.

I think your solution (hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in investment) is worse than all of those.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not making fun of them for being right. I'm not asking for them to "help" us invade anywhere. I'm asking them to step up and take leadership and actually do something with teeth. I would like them to do all the heavy lifting on handling Iran, and we just play the support role. That will never happen because they won't do it, and the US won't allow it.

I actually think the US would allow it. It should be apparent that letting them run with the ball is better than the alternative, in that we have to carry it. I think it's pretty obvious that we are already spread pretty thinly.

[Franklinnoble]

Originally Posted by Neville Chamberlain

My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.

Allowing a violent regime to arm itself with nukes would be a BAD idea.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm not making fun of them for being right. I'm not asking for them to "help" us invade anywhere. I'm asking them to step up and take leadership and actually do something with teeth. I would like them to do all the heavy lifting on handling Iran, and we just play the support role. That will never happen because they won't do it, and the US won't allow it.

Since when is 'leadership' defined as a willingness to start wars of agression?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Franklinnoble

Allowing a violent regime to arm itself with nukes would be a BAD idea.

Who's violent now?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Who's violent now?

You need to start living in reality, not "happyland". Wars are a terrible, terrible thing, but they are sometimes neccesary. As for my position on Iran, it's not an easy position, and I do think some progression in dealing with it needs to be done. What exactly that is, I'm not sure.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Since when is 'leadership' defined as a willingness to start wars of agression?

Leadership doesn't have to be postive. Leadership is the capabilty to lead, the ability to get people to buy into your ideals and direction. Hilter might be the greatest leader in the last 100 years or so, based on his leadership skills alone and how he managed to get people to do what he did. Of course, what he lead for was one of the worst acts of human kind ever.

[law90026]

Speaking as a non-American, I'm not sure going to war is the best option for the US. In the past 2 years, there have already been 2 wars fought against states that are technically "Muslim" and with varied success. A third war launched in rapid succession, even if successful, has great potential to unite the Muslim community against what would appear as American aggression. Bear in mind the reason for the war against Iraq has been proven to be largely false, i.e. WMDs that do not exist. It would be incredibly easy for another American-led war to lend further support to the anti-American sentiment within the Muslim community in the Middle-East and this would push hopes of peace even further out the window.

This of course doesn't even take into account other considerations such as whether a war against Iran would even be successful and/or whether the American public would actually agree to send more of its people out to fight in a foreign country.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Tell me, what would 'things going badly' look like to you? I mean, just yesterday fifty people died in attacks, including six American soldiers. The day before, 42 bodies were found on various roads and 26 people were killed in various other attacks. That's 118 people over the last two days.

Because really, every objective fact says that things suck over there. Journalists and politicians can't leave their hotels or they'll be kidnapped or beheaded or both. Most of our 'coalition of the willing' have deserted us. Electricity production is at a three year low. They can't even get enough clean water in Baghdad.

Is this all made up? We've spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars and you are telling me that this isn't that bad? So what would a 'bad' Iraq look like? Or are you saying it looks good compared to a post-apocolyptic, nuclear winter Iraq? Or is it your position that these events are made up by media? What exactly do you mean?

this is everything i was gonna say, except yours had links.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Since when is 'leadership' defined as a willingness to start wars of agression?

Where did I suggest it did?

[Daimyo]

Too bad we had to invade Iraq or we might actually have the resources and global reputation to at least have this discussion. As it is, to the rest of the world it has to seem a bit ironic that a country armed with nukes (and the only country to have ever used them against another) that is just coming off invading another country is now considering invading someone else on the grounds that we don't want to see an aggressive, nuclear power.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

You need to start living in reality, not "happyland".

In "happyland" Iran hasn't attacked any foreign countries, since they were called Persia. What are things like in reality?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Where did I suggest it did?

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I'm asking them to step up and take leadership and actually do something with teeth. I would like them to do all the heavy lifting on handling Iran, and we just play the support role.

You said it right here. You said that you wanted them to take some 'leadership' and do the heavy lifting of starting a pre-emptive war of aggression and invading Iran.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You said it right here. You said that you wanted them to take some 'leadership' and do the heavy lifting of starting a pre-emptive war of aggression and invading Iran.

Did I say that? Or are you reading into my statements?

[ISiddiqui]

It is kind of silly to start calling Iran a 'violent' regime. Do they prop up violent groups elsewhere, yes. But they realize that those are different from directly invading another country. If giving money to proxy fighters is the mark of a 'violent' country, then we may have some problems with our own.

[st.cronin]

I think Iran is going to be the next President's problem, and one that he/she will have better options at their disposal. From what I can tell, Iran is not very close to having nuclear weapons (maybe 10 years out, something like that), and there is still the possibility that some sort of engagement (similiar to our policy with Pakistan) might produce more stable results.

[MrBigglesworth]

FN, I'm still curious as to what you meant by it 'not being as bad as the biased media' says it is. One thousand Iraqi's are dying per month. Per capita, that is like 100,000 people dying per year in the USA. Is it your view that that story incorrect, or is the media saying it is actually worse than that?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The most obvious problem is that we don't have any troops to invade with.

If we decide that Iraq is a lost cause, as many (I believe including you) are proposing we do, suddenly there are ~150,000 battle-hardened US troops 100 miles away from the Iranian border. Not to mention troops and bases on the other border just in case you want to make it a 2-front campaign. Since pulling out of Iraq would be an acknowledgment that nation-building failed, we wouldn't bother trying to occupy Iran and rebuild it, we'd just go in, kill/remove the main people in charge and more or less leave.

I think your solution (hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars in investment) is worse than all of those.

Hmmmmm.... I don't seem to recall advocating a solution that included hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of dollars of investment. In fact, I believe I was pointing out how allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons only makes it more likely that a scenario with a million+ deaths would eventually result. But maybe you can show me projections that show how under 3,000 dead US soldiers in 3 years and approximately 12,000 dead Iraqis a year turns into hundreds of thousands dead and trillions in investment when we're not rebuilding Iran post-invasion.